Marriage Talk - Vilification or the new Evangelism?

I was reading Mathew 23 and it dawned upon me that it was describing an experience I have been seeing as Christians alternate between arrogance and shame in their discoures (or lack thereof) when it comes to this damned Plebiscite on Marriage Equality. Note: I am using ‘damned’ in the technical sense here, not as a swear word. To be ‘damned’ can mean: a cause or occasion of being damned or condemned (whether by God or others).

I have on occasions seen people as willing to condemn others as they are right now. It has happened in a few places: ‘Children overboard scandal’ in 2001, ‘the Cronulla riots’ of 2005, ‘the Aboriginal Intervention in the Northern Territory’ in 2007 (extended to 2022), ‘Reclaim Australia protests in Canberra in 2016’ and ‘Anti-immigration Rallies in Melbourne’ in February 2017.

Vilification and ‘alt-Truth’ became a Government-sponsored political device when it used its resources to criticize the former Human Rights Commissioner, Gillian Triggs. Professor Triggs was known to be a defender of freedom of speech, but also argued that with freedom came responsibility. She argued that most Australians were unaware of their rights under the Constitution and that there should be a Charter of Rights.

Such a Charter of Rights would be advantageous to the many, but would see those who claim privilege by diminishing others lose some of their ill-gotten power. Those who are arrogant enough to claim they deserve power and believe themselves to be entitled are also those who will most readily belittle and put down others. Christians need to be wary of this tendency and remember the Master’s command, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.” (Luke 6:37).  

   

I think the tendency to judge is about a Human “world view” and the ease with which some people deHumanize other people with a different world-view... it has something to do with individualism and self-referencing. It is an arrogance. I believe this is only broken when our world-view is challenged by stepping out of it and learning to appreciate something else. God’s world-view, on the other hand, has more to do with viewing all of God’s good creation, including God’s creatures. God saw everything that God had made, and indeed, it was very good. (Genesis 1:31a)  

This is why travel is so important and intercultural or ecumenical or interfaith relations. I believe this was the message following the Tower of Babel incident (Genesis 11:1-9). God commanded that we “go and generate (be creative) all over the earth”. That was not about simply populating... (simplistic definition!), it was about developing cultures and poetry and thinking and different ways of loving and appreciating. 

Pentecost (after much prayer) was the sign that God never intended people to think one way or the other (or use only one dominant language), but people were able to understand “each in their own language” in a radically diverse community. This, for me, represents a much clearer vision of Heaven. (See Acts 2).

I come from mixed ethnicity, so I recollect being called mongrel, Chink, Slope and half-caste, as I was growing up in Australia. It didn’t feel quite so bad when children made racial slurs, but it was deeply shocking when politicians did it (after all adults elected them). I remember people questioning my parents’ marriage and my Aussie grandparents’ response of making me sit down and watch ‘Guess who’s coming to dinner’ with Tracey, Hepburn, Poitier and Houghton (1967, two years after I was born).I also remember discovering that two of my great-grandparents did not marry because one was Jewish and one was Catholic. It would be many decades before inter-faith marriages would become acceptable. I could not understand why other people felt it was necessary to critique or advise or praise my family - from the outside, where they had little or no real knowledge of it.  

People who called us names have my forgiveness, but that doesn’t mean I now regard them as credible when it comes to commenting on other people’s marriages (current or hoped for) today. Their ongoing vilification and de-Humanizing of others continues to be deeply sinful (building up obstacles to themselves of others experiencing the grace of God). Every time they judge and name call, they work against the gospel of grace. The walls go up, higher and higher, as obstacle after obstacle prevents anything being heard, in the desperation to simply survive the onslaught. 

People from a dominant white culture in Australia have usually never experienced the daily or weekly abuse, the threats of violence (or death), the bullying, the denigration and the constant fear of exclusion... unless, of course, they are gay. 

As one of the Moderators on the Australian Christians for Marriage Equality FB page, I have had to use my learnings from years of combatting and confronting the systemic and enculturated abuse that has been made somehow acceptable in our society. The rudeness and threats of violence, arising from the current non-binding postal survey, are of the same ilk as that experienced under the title of racism. It is the same kind of persistent hounding that was experienced by Gillian Triggs and it is arising from the capacity of people to treat others as Sub-Human. I have often said that I can tolerate stupidity, but I cannot stand rudeness. It costs nothing to be courteous, so why do people feel free to write hate-speech?

Christians who participate in such behaviour bring the Gospel into disrepute. According to the dictionary, intolerance toward those who hold options different to oneself has a term: bigotry. Yet, people who exhibit bigoted behaviour do not see themselves as bigots. They simply see their view as absolute. They are right and everyone else is wrong. This is an example of dualistic thinking. Christians who are dualistic thinkers believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. When talking about Marriage Equality, some Christians think Heterosexual Marriage is absolutely right and anything else is wrong. There are other Christians who think Marriage can be between two people, no matter what their gender-identity. Then, there are many Christians who hold a view that is somewhere else entirely. 

E.g.1. 1  I am Heterosexual and so marriage to the opposite sex is important for me, but I cant really speak for anyone else.

E.g.2. Religious people should observe only Religiously-defined marriage.

E.g.3. Religious people can be in interfaith marriages.  

E.g.4. My religion should influence the values of the society, including those who do not follow my religion.

E.g.5. My religion should be one of many voices contributing to the framing of our society.

Among Christians in Australia, there is a diversity of opinion on Marriage Equality. There has also been a range of behaviours. The Moderators’ Group on Australian Christians for Marriage Equality have seen literally thousands of people saying:

“Thanks for restoring my hope.”

“I thought Christians hated us. Thanks for proving me wrong.”

“Thank goodness I found your page”

“...because someone's faith doesn't have to limit their humanity... Some great stories on this group.”

Of greater concern has been those who have said:

“Impressed, from the other pages claiming to be christian pushing the No agenda the behaviour from them had me lose all respect for christians, they even attacked less conservative christians as false believers. Good to see more tolerance and love being shared.”

“my grandfather was a minister when he was alive, and i have not entered since being made to feel like i was a sin of a person  .. so this helps alot...”

“Thanks for your support. i'm gobsmacked. After hearing all the lies & hate elsewhere, this is a breath of fresh air...”

I am not going to post samples of the posts we have hidden or deleted. Many have contained threats of violence or hatred, either for the church or on behalf of sectors of the church. Seemingly, the most virulent comments have come from people whose faith seems to be threatened by our presence. Most of these have denied that we are Christian, called us abominations and compared us to Satan’s spawn.  People have felt free to rubbish respected biblical and theological scholars and Pastors/Ministers/Priests. 

We have also deleted large numbers of YES comments, because they also broke the rules of the site. Some were haranguing or aggressive. Some were rude or used inappropriate language. We also deleted posts from both sides who misused scriptures by proof-texting or not indicating an interpretive understanding.  

While some of the Moderators have suffered homophobic hate for many years, some are simply straight Christian leaders who see the pastoral and ethical need to stand with those most impacted by the debate. To say we have been shocked would be an understatement. Most of the Moderators have engaged in extra Pastoral Supervision for themselves due to the overwhelming number of tragic and terrible stories, the sheer quantity of grieving and hurting people, and the violence of some of the hate attacks. 

Why do we do it? 

We believe it is the right thing to do. We stand alongside the marginalized. We identify with those who are disadvantaged and who are in the wilderness. We believe God didn’t make mistakes when creating the diversity of humanity. We love God and those whom God made.

I also do it because I am an evangelist. I am most certainly not looking for Christians scalps to carve into the spine of my Bible! I believe evangelism is being a messenger of good news, and amid the clamor and clashes of debate, some still small voices can say to people, “God loves you!” When people come to our site on the verge of taking their own lives, because they feel so battered by what other Christians have said, we get the opportunity to engage in crisis ministry and show genuine love and support. I have no doubt that we have talked a number of people “off the edge” - at least for a time.

In the broader community, the association of NO vote hardline condemnation with Christianity has done immeasurable damage to the reputation of the Christian church. People associate the emphasis on ‘biblical teaching’ with the findings of the Royal Commission on Institutional Child Abuse and they find the church to be hypocritical and not credible. Such judgmentalism from Christians invites the wider society to be judgmental of Christians... and we all bear the responsibility for what has been allowed to happen in our religious organizations. And so, the Christian message is damaged. It loses credibility, because those charged with the responsibility to proclaim the good new are seen to be hypocritical judges without compassion. We are labeled as those who hate and vilify, rather than those who love and care.  

The church does not exist to live in holy isolation. It exists to be in the world (but not of it) so that it may worship God and display the love that arises from the experience of Heaven... “they will know we are Christians by our love”. Honestly, I don’t mind that some people choose to vote NO. I find it terrifying that Christians (from both sides) think it is okay to abuse one another. 

This debate isn’t about defining marriage. For Australian Christians, it is about defining how we communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Australia today. 

Is our Evangel (message), “turn or burn”, or is it, “God created you and loves you as you are”?

Marriage: Blessing or Discrimination – for some not others?

Coming from a mixed-ethnicity household, I grew up being called a mongrel. Back in the day, politicians argued about preserving racial purity or weaving together a diverse society. The ‘White Australia Policy” sought to keep undesirables out and policies to identify and remove mixed-race children from Aboriginal mothers provided fodder for Stolen Generations. First Australians, with complex kinship codes and millennia-established rite and ceremony were told they were not legal and now needed permission from successive colonising Governments (and the Churches that were in league with them) in order to marry. To make matters worse, the same state and religious leaders then developed a coordinated approach to removing children from such unions. 

So it was with some dismay that I read an article in yesterday’s SMH. Rev Dr Michael Jensen, rector of St Mark’s Anglican Church at Darling Point, wrote about why he is voting NO in the postal survey on same-gender marriage. 

Dr Jensen noted that for some Christians, “Opposition to the redefinition of marriage seems obstructionist at best and driven by prejudice at worst.” He readily admitted “there are terrible stories that GLBTQI people have to tell about rejection, vilification and violence”. He wrote of the shame that people like him have not spoken loudly enough against the bullying of our fellow citizens. 

      

It is curious, then, that Dr Jensen believes that “preserving the current definition of marriage will be good for Australia and for all Australians”. I wonder how he thinks it will be good for those who have been rejected, vilified and violently abused? Surely, it should be the victims who should receive the restorative justice of being recognised, heard and affirmed. The principles of restorative justice are based on the idea that it is not enough to either punish or rehabilitate perpetrators of abuse, but that people who have been victimised should be restored to wholeness, and that this may require particular support from those perpetrators. At the very least, it is beholden to those who have contributed to systemic abuse to get out of the way and stop colluding with systems of oppression.  This was the basis for much of Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom of Heaven.

Of course, the current definition of marriage, was only codified in such a restrictive way just over a decade ago (2004). Dr Jensen calls this ‘classical marriage’. It is as if such a form was something coming to us down the ages from Ancient Greece, or at least from the period of Mozart. In fact, up until recent times, formally registered marriage was largely reserved for those with property or inheritance concerns. Indeed, many of the scriptural references about marriage or divorce are about ensuring women are not abandoned or left without provision.

Within our society, we have marriages and de facto relationships. Marriages are entered into and recognised under two distinct authorisation processes – civil and religious. As religious celebrants, neither Dr Jensen nor I are authorised to celebrate civil wedding ceremonies. We perform religious rites and testify that they have been observed. We sign documentation testifying that we have sighted documentation relating to the legitimacy of the people being married.

In the 1961 Marriage Act, under the guidance of Sir Garfield Barwick, marriage in Australia was understood as:
• as a lifelong and exclusive union between two people
• a bond that draws two people together in a relationship framed not just by feelings of love but by promises of commitment and faithfulness.

The legal framers chose not to define gender at that time, despite pressure from complementarians to do so. It was, of course, the ‘60’s, and women were beginning to appear at Law School and make the case for Women’s rights, not to be treated differently under the law. It took over 40 years for the law to change to specifically restrict marriage to a man and a woman. This was done to prevent the recognition of same gender couples marrying in the ACT and overseas.

As fellow followers of Jesus Christ, Dr Jensen and I agree that we are called to recognise all human beings as made in the image of God. As he says, “Jesus calls his disciples to love and protect the vulnerable, reminding of our frailties and proneness to error.” Where we differ is in how we believe we are called to respond.  While Dr Jensen assumes that saying YES is the most peaceable thing to do. It is also, for many, the right thing to do. 

In ministering alongside and with diverse people, I have learnt that they are no less pastoral, generous, creative, beautiful or flawed just because they identify as LGBTIQ. They are no less able to enter into a lifelong and exclusive union with another person, based on commitment and faithfulness. Indeed, many of them are in such relationships. The obstacle to experiencing grace, for them, is the lack of affirmation, blessing and support from the wider community that comes with marriage. Their rejection and experience of discrimination impacts negatively on their capacity to contribute to society to their fullest potential.

I find it disturbing to think that somehow my husband and I have a valid marriage because of our physical attributes. Our marriage bears witness to sharing a creative, hospitable, community-nourishing life. We have countless ‘kids’ through sport-coaching, choir-directing and mentoring. Over the years, many of them have lived in our home. We have blended extended family. Indeed, when we were married, my stepson and grandma stood and affirmed the covenant we were making to be household and kin together. To me, this is more in keeping with God’s instructions in scripture to live out the realm of God wherever we are. It takes more than ‘giving birth’ to give life to children. For many, we have been able to offer the comfort and security of a loving and stable home.

Biblical imagery talks about becoming one flesh (Genesis) or one body (Corinthians). While it is easy, in today’s individualistic society, to assume this is about one person and another person, the unity described in the Body of Christ is about formation for Community, reflecting the Triune Community of God. Likewise, the Oneness described in Genesis stories of family are a far cry from the type of ‘classical marriage’ Dr Jensen seems to propose. (These included polygamy, mixed wives and concubines and arranged marriages.) 

What does become clear is that people are made to be together in relationships of intimacy, companionship and partnership. This sits well with an overarching theme in scripture about the importance of incarnation – being fully and physically present and actively involved, not just words or intentions. While every couple should complement (contribute to and balance) each other, I take exception to the idea that this is defined by gender. I certainly dispute the argument that one spouse should be subject to the other. Rather than focusing on subjugation and headship, we could see marriage as the honouring and upholding of one another. (My husband is nodding and saying, “It works for us.”) Moreover, the couple is created and affirmed in relation to contributing to the creation of community beyond themselves. Marriage (an expression of love) is not selfish, but kind. It is a building block for the wellbeing of extended family and tribe.

Finally, I have found it interesting that so many christians believe that Australia has such a strongly Christian heritage. I am of Chinese-Buddhist-Scottish-Atheist descent. I am simultaneously 2nd generation and seventh generation Australian and adopted Adnyamathana (rock people of the Ikara-Flinders). Australians have at least 60,000 years of heritage, much of which was destroyed and stolen in the last 200 years in the colonising name of Christianity.

Dr Jensen claims that The Christian Bible provides the foundation for our laws.  I confess, along with many Australians, my sorrow and grief that the scriptures have been used to justify genocide and break up families, particularly those of First Australians. I pray that we do not try to do the same thing to rainbow families. Rainbows remind us, after all, of God’s Covenantal history – a history of unexpected relationships and blessings. The purpose of Covenant is to hold us closer to God, that we might seek God’s blessing.

All praise be to the God who created all Humans to be blessed!

Rev Dr Amelia Koh-Butler is a Minister of the Uniting Church in Australia. Her research is in intercultural studies (anthropological missiology) and applied theology. She is transitioning from being the Executive Director of Mission Resourcing in South Australia to take up a new appointment as Parramatta Mission’s Chaplain to the University of Western Sydney.

A follow up on Power and Prayer

Only a few days ago, I wrote a post on Power and Prayer.  This morning I woke up to an article published yesterday, reporting on an interview with a public figure in Australian society, Mr Lyle Shelton, calling for "conversion therapy" for children. Correctly naming that it was not appropriate for adults to be forced to undertake such a highly disputed and controversial "treatment", yet, encouraging parents to inflict it upon their children.

This is encouragement to undertake what I believe to be child abuse. I can only think of it as being destructive and willfully dehumanizing. The World Council of Churches supports a position regarding the Rights of the Child. Activities that are coercive or done against a person's will (implied in Mr Shelton's statement) contravene what mainstream Church leaders around the world.

As a Christian Minister, I reject Mr Shelton's stance and call on him to retract his damaging words.
As a person of faith, I call on God to protect children from this kind of hateful abuse.

O God, who sees the vulnerability of each child,
Protect them from the harm of ignorance and abuse.
We pray for hearts to be filled with your love 
and minds to be led by your wisdom,  
So that parents and advisors can see each child for what they truly are:
Your precious creations, made beautifully in your image.
Jesus Christ, friend of Children,
Let the little ones know your protection from experimental 'treatments' 
that seek to change them from who you created them to be.
May those who seek to coerce parents or violate the security of trust within families
come face to face with you... for only you are Judge.
Amen. 

Affirming MARRIAGE

Nearly a quarter of a century ago, T and I said I Will and I Do. Now we are saying YES!

I was delighted when I was first exploring Christianity and was given a Bible to start reading from the front - Genesis. When I got to Leah and Rachel, I suddenly realized that the Big God Story in the Bible was not just about European Western cultural privilege. God was quite prepared to work through the stories of other cultures and other family structures. This came as a relief to me because previously Christians had shamed me and my family for having a grandfather with multiple wives and concubines and for having a multitude of offspring. (He was faithful to all of them.)
I discovered that the issue about polygamy was a cultural tradition and that it did not limit God's capacity to bless the family. Now, continuing to read the story, I soon discovered that there were significant disadvantages to being part of that family - not the least being if you were a daughter... poor Dinah. BUT - again, despite the less-than-ideal family decisions (like a genocide of the in-laws and first converts top the Covenant) God continued to pursue prevenient grace (when God loves us before we even know) for a seemingly dysfunctional family anyway.

My point is - much of our reading of marriage in the Bible is what we choose to privilege as relevant. We read through cultural lenses. Now we are challenged to think about how do we bear witness to our faith in a secular society around the creation and reform of secular law.

I value my delightfully monogamous heterosexual marriage. For us, we experience the grace and blessings of God on a daily basis, but it is not about sex, nor is it just about the two of us. It is about the community around us that is committed to us and our commitment to them. It is about our care for each other's siblings and the home we provide for immediate and extended family. It is about household and community and blessing. It is about being part of a Covenantal relationship and a community that honours our commitment to Covenant with/under God. It is about witnessing to the love of the One who invites us all to share compassion and be self-sacrificing in doing so.

There are people in same-gender life-long relationships, including immediate family. I pray for them to have the opportunity to be blessed by God and surrounded by a church community, who encourages them in spiritual life, witness to God's liberating love and service to the world that Christ loves, without the judgment and vilification of people who express hate.

Don't forget that we are talking about real people who read these posts, trying to figure out if they will ever be welcome in a church. Be assured that if we ever feel the calling to rebuke, we only ever get the right to do so because we have earned it with the trusting relationships that arise from extended unconditional hospitality AND because people have invited us to participate in co-accountable relationships of Christian fellowship.

In a secular society, I do not believe Christians should act as if we have the right or privilege of dominating or deciding definitions for others. However, we do have both the capacity and responsibility to contribute to a more generous, kinder society. We are not there to police others, but to be first on the scene when someone needs a hand or a tissue. We should be there when people are hungry, lonely or feeling vulnerable... ah yes - the Beattitudes (T's favorite passage)!

So, today I pray for all married people and all those who wish to marry. I also pray for those who have been married and for whom it didn't work out. I pray for those who missed out on marriage, especially those who have loved and lost. Most of all, I pray for my darling. I wish our marriage could go on for eternity, but I will settle for every day you can give me. Please God - bless marriage!

Power And Prayer

The Late theologian and non-violence advocate, Walter Wink, wrote,

“Intercession is spiritual defiance of what is, in the name of what God has promised. Intercession visualizes an alternative future to the one apparently fated by the momentum of current contradictory forces.”
“The message is clear: history belongs to the intercessors, who believe the future into being....Even a small number of people, firmly committed to the new inevitability on which they have fixed their imaginations, can decisively affect the shape the future takes. These shapers of the future are the intercessors, who call out of the future the longed-for new present...the reign of God.” 

Becoming aware of the vulnerable and persecuted is difficult. For one thing, the very nature of vulnerability means powerlessness and invisibility. It is what happens when people exercise power over others. It is a dishonouring of the power of God, who chooses to reveal Godself in the reflected image of the most vulnerable. When we recognize the face of the crucified One as our example of Godly behaviour, we convict ourselves of being more attracted to Human power than following humility.

I see people wielding power - and it is not pretty. In a time and place where we have the opportunity to empower the poor and vulnerable, I see Christian leaders choosing values that I believe to be inconsistent with the Gospel of Liberation and the God of self-giving. I see risk-assessments based on avoiding the spiritual disciplines of faith, generosity, service, acts of justice and sacrifice. I see ecclesial procedures built upon short-term 'business practices' (under the guise of somewhat simplistic compliance policies) instead of a focus on obedience to the call to participate in God's mission.

Such deception of the people of God is perpetuated by claiming that an object of our role in mission is to 'build the Church' - as if this is about building the legal entity. The scriptural charge tells us to Go - Make Disciples and Baptize. It focuses our work on relationships of empowering, not relationships of exercising "power-over".

To pray is to make ourselves vulnerable before God and open ourselves and the world around us up to the transforming work of the Spirit. When we pray for our enemies (or for those we disagree with) we are brought into the possibility that, through the forgiving spirit of God, we might sacrifice ourselves for the sake of those who hate us, judge us or belittle us. How can we do this? When we pray, we also learn that the opinion that counts is God's, no one else's.

So, God, today I pray...

For the abusive, unjust and ungenerous in our churches,
For their meetings, their collusion with dominating powers and their strategies,
For victims and perpetrators, for onlookers and bystanders,
For those who are silent and those who have been silenced.
Come,  Good Shepherd,
Lead us to the waters of life
And help me not to drown the idiots!
Amen

1-2 CALD 2nd Gens - What's Next?

Just over a week ago, I was involved in the "1-2 What's Next/Second Gen Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Conference".
I have had a week to reflect.

Others have reported on the wonderful enthusiasm and wisdom emerging from diverse Aussie/CALD leaders, mostly in their 20's (with a few in their 30's). I had the privilege of facilitating some of their sessions. We used the Space for Grace process mentioned in other places on this blog. (We were not discussing Marriage, but life, spirituality, context and ministry.) The process involves setting some ground rules and then standing back while they take on co-leading themselves.

The themes emerging from 2nd generation leaders (not in order) were:
1. tradition, culture and faith
2. discovering and inherited faith
3. perserverence of faith
4. discerment and hyphenated identity
5. transition in growing cross cultural communities
6. cultural expectation
7. parenting 3rd generation

Each of these themes warrants further work, but my focus today is on the community and the process and what I observed.
   
The Community
 
Diversity is a challenge for any gathering. Building a sense of group identity and shared community requires finding commonality within the mosaic (and confusion) of competing stories. Allowing participants the room to be able to share uninterrupted stories on their own terms (rather than being dissected by others) invited people to learn about the rich Humanity within their new community. This is about building a new community (a new foretaste of Heaven) rather than privileging the previous identity groups as constrictive and limiting experiences. The new community is called into being by the breath of the Spirit made known by those who are present and engaged with one another.

One of the participants commented afterward,

After only a morning, we felt as if we had been growing together as a community for a week or more. It was a profound experience of knowing one another in a new way.

And,

I really noticed the difference when we left the safety of the S4G and went into another setting. 

We printed several key questions that people could choose from:

Space 4 Grace
Questions for everyone  – sharing of life
Share a story to:
1. Tell us about your life, communities, your ministry context
2. Help us to see and handle differences
3. Identity
    a. How do you understand your place in the household / family / workplace?
    b. Is your faith inherited or personally discovered?
4. Tell us about your Spiritual Life
    a. What kinds of practices nourish your spirit?
    b. How do you pray? What is important in praying for you?
    c. How do you connect with the Scriptures? Are there special passages for you?
    d. Tell us about your spiritual community

After everyone had an opportunity to share stories related to the above questions, small groups explored emerging themes...

Questions for Small Groups
1. What did you notice?
2. Are there any emerging issues?
3. What is Important about identify?
4. What is important regarding spiritual disciplines?

The Community was also built by having generous times for games and meals and plenty of opportunities for informal conversations. It reminded me of an old Youth-work learning: All Youth Ministry involves food and/or music. Certainly, these help to build and nourish community - a bit like Communion really.

The Process

Using Space 4 Grace can take a really long time for deep issues, but it can take a couple of hours, as we did in this setting. We divided into two manageable groups once everyone had mastered the skills of RESPECT Guidelines and MUTUAL INVITATION and done a demonstration of how to do these. We called for volunteers to be theme note-takers and invited the first story-sharers for each group. A couple of the older people visited each group to see how they were getting on.

Being in groups of 15 was big enough to get real diversity and small enough to develop a sense of community intimacy. I know other larger groups have experienced the same kind of intimacy, but that takes greater listening discipline to sustain for a longer period of time.

When both groups were done, we gathered together and checked the themes across the groups and then got people to circle those that were most important from the conversations. That is how we got the list (above). Everyone had two goes at refining the themes, so there was built-in validation within the process.

What I observed

I was expecting life-issues to surface and I was expecting community to be built. I was surprised by how quickly the participants entered into very deep sharing. It was a privilege to be present as God graced us all with an experience of holiness. The Spirit was present and it felt amazing. I can logic about this experience, but nothing I write can adequately reflect the profound sense of the presence of God among God's people.

Others talked about the experience, too. The next day, participants shared about their desire to extend the community they had experienced and try out the methods in other contexts.

Asian, European, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern and African followers of Jesus have different traditions and experiences of faith. They read the Bible in different languages and give emphasis to different parts of Scripture and different spiritual practices. They often get segregated and hide behind their own cultural limitations. Yet, in this context, people were able to learn from one another, pushing beyond "fear of the other" into exploring how we might be informed by one another and through relationship.

God was glorified from multiple perspectives!

Where to from here?

I now firmly believe that God is revealed in the multitude that makes up the Body of Christ, not by the individual voice of the dominant culture. Therefore, I will work to enable the members of the multitude to find their voices and develop listening skills. This is why I have served on the various Councils of the Church and why I will continue to encourage people who do not automatically get approached. We need the voices God calls - not just the ones we are comfortable with.
__________________